REFERAT KAOHSIUNG 6.3.2004
Ladies and Gentlemen
Some weeks ago at the University of Basle an expert in direct democracy explained that since 1973 approximately 1800 referendums have been held worldwide. 40% of all in Switzerland, 25% in the rest of Europe, 10% in Africa and 9% in the Americas.
He also said that we face an increasing number of referendums, above all in Europe. Between 1990 and 2000 the number of national referendums almost doubled that of the previous decade. One of the key factors of this process is certainly the democratic revolution in Eastern Europe. In those relatively young democracies inclusion in the constitution of elements of direct democracy is considered as an important complement to the representative democracy. An impressive example of this development is Lithuania. In the period of 1991-1996 the Lithuanians have voted on no less then 17 political subjects,- amongst them such important issues like national independence, withdrawal of Russian troops and a new constitution.
In Western Europe several of referenda have been held in the context of European Integration (Maastricht)
The trend to introduce and exercise the right to co-determination is a strong sign of the growing will to strengthen the citizen’s role in the political process.
Of course there are a variety of designs.
Legal standards for referenda range from non-binding plebiscites to binding decisions. But claims or expectations are anywhere the same: quote “the decisive control and use of political power should be transferred from the hands of the few onto broad shoulders of the many” (IRI Europe report 2002, Country Index on Citizen lawmaking)
I am coming now to Switzerland, my own country, and a description of its core components of direct democracy.
Switzerland is a federal state in the heart of Europe. It has the widest and most comprehensive experience of citizen lawmaking anywhere. It is not an overstatement when I say that it can be considered the pioneer of direct democracy.
Since 1848/1874, when the first Federal Constitutions have been established, Swiss citizens have exercised most far reaching rights of political co-determination.
There is a broad spectrum of direct democratic procedures such as:
This means that our Federal Constitution contains not only the most important rules for the functioning of the State. It guarantees first of all the basic rights of the people and the political rights of the citizens.
There is scarcely any other country, in which the people have such a powerful position in co-deciding the outcomes of political process. The crucial ingredients for the proper functioning of this particular form of system are the following:
To give you a deeper insight into the Swiss direct democratic institutions I would like to describe its core procedures.
Let’s start with the so called popular initiative:
Popular initiatives do not originate in Parliament or in Government but with the citizens themselves. They are therefore regarded as the driving force behind our direct democracy.
Citizens may seek a decision on an amendment they want to make to the Constitution. For such an initiative to be launched, signatures of at least 100 000 voters must be collected within 18 months. This procedure is very popular. I checked the list of all popular initiatives since 1874 and could print out 18 densely written pages! There you find nearly every subject you can imagine. The themes are linked more or less with the complete range of political issues.
A popular initiative may be formulated as a general proposal or – much more often – be put forward as a precise new constitutional provision can not longer be changed by Parliament or the Government. Once a popular initiative has been launched, the Government as well as the Parliament are obliged to discuss its objectives. The Parliament organizes hearings and listens to all interested groups and organizations to arrive at a considered opinion on the initiative.
The authorities sometimes respond with a so called counter-proposal (generally less far-reaching) in the hope that in a mandatory referendum the people and States (cantons) will give their preference to it. To become an amendment to the Constitution, an initiative needs a majority of yes votes from both the voters and the cantons. It is no secret that double majority is very hart to reach.
Since 1987, the possibility of a double yes vote has existed in ballots on popular initiatives: voters may approve both an initiative and its counter-proposal. In case of a double yes for both the ultimate question determines which of the proposals is preferred.
The people are entitled to pronounce on Parliamentary decisions after the parliamentary process is completed. Federal laws, generally binding decisions of the Confederation and international treaties concluded for an infinite duration are subject to an optional referendum: in this case, a popular ballot is held if at least 50’000 citizens so request. The signatures must be collected within 100 days of publication of the law or the treaty.
The referendum is similar to a veto and has the effect of delaying and safeguarding the political process by blocking amendments adopted by Parliament or the Government or delaying their effect. The referendum therefore is often described as a brake applied by the people.
By using these broad direct democratic instruments Swiss people participate directly in the political process. So, we can not only elect our representatives to the Parliament, we also have the possibility to decide whether we want to accept or to reject the result of the lawmaking process in Parliament.
This right of co-determination does not only exist on the national level, but also in cantons. To make it more understandable, I will limit myself to the national level.
Since the Swiss do actively exercise their constitutional rights we are called every 3 month to cast our vote.
To give you a figure: only in the years between 1990 and 2004 people obliged the national government 53 times to organise a referendum. The wording “oblige the government” says what it means: it is not the top-down approach where the Government decides if and what about a referendum is held. This lies in the people’s hands
To summarise: we can say that through the described direct democratic instruments Swiss people have by one hand the possibility to push the political elite forward or to pull it back.
If a group of people, a political party, NGO’s, trade unions, etc. are able to collect at least 100 000 signatures within 18 months, they can move forward any political issue and bring it to a mandatory referendum.
With at least 50 000 collected signatures within 90 days after the publication of a new law, they can bring it to an optional referendum and let the citizens decide whether they vote in favour or against the law.
Results of the referenda are binding whatever the implications might be.
To illustrate I would like to give you some examples:
In 1986 the Swiss Government and a huge majority in Parliament decided that Switzerland should become a full member of the United Nations.
Since this decisions required an amendment to the Constitution, the question had to be decided in a mandatory referendum. Most of the political parties and other influential groups have strongly been in favour of joining the UN. Nevertheless, the voters rejected it by great majority. The result was not only that Switzerland did not become a member of the UN in 1986. In addition as a sign of respect of the voter’s will this particular political project was frozen for many, many, years. Only in 2003, when a popular initiative with the same question was launched and brought to a vote, the issue came again on the political agenda. This time, the Swiss citizens voted 57.6% in favour and my country could join the UN in march 2003.
As you may know, the Swiss are very sceptical about the country’s relationship with the EU.
When in 1992 the Swiss Parliament ratified a treaty with the EU about Switzerland’s accession to the so called European Economic Area, this treaty was rejected the same year in the referendum. One of the most important reasons was the fear to loose a part of the direct democratic influence by letting ministers decide in Brussels.
Eight years after the EEA referendum a pro European organisation launched a popular initiative to push the Government to start negotiations with the EU about Switzerland’s accession to the EU. This popular initiative was not successful: in 2002 an overwhelming majority voted against it.
So it is clear that the question of Switzerland’s joining the EU remains on ice.
On the other hand, the referendum launched by some very conservative organisations fighting against a package of bilateral treaties with EU was also not successful.
The results of the three referendums are interesting. The common background is the Swiss relationship with the EU. But approaches in each of the referenda where different. So, the Government got a clear guideline for the position to take in European matters. At least for the near future, the way is open to conclude bilateral treaties on specific issues but not for more. The Government is bound in its foreign policy by this decision even if its declared political goal is Switzerland’s accession to the EU.
Such outcomes of referenda in international matters have several implications. Internally the Government has to respect the voters will. Externally, in the negotiation process it strengthens the Swiss negotiators in their position. But there is also a need to explanations the specific democratic process to our partners in negotiations. The latter is not always an easy task. An understanding for the Swiss people’s possibilities to influence international affairs also against the Government’s intention is not always a given. Such democratic power of the people is for many too strange to be understood. But I think this expression of a democratic will has to be accepted also by the international community.
These examples show as well, that the Swiss referendum system guarantees not only the citizen’s right of co-determination in domestic politics but also in international affairs. The voters have the last word. No wonder that we call the citizen the real sovereign.
One aspect in the exercise of voter’s political rights is of course the time the decision making process needs. Direct democratic process is not fast! This was –by the way – one of the reasons why it took us so long until in 1971 Swiss women got finally their right to vote. The question had to be brought 3 times to a referendum!
On the other hand, it makes politics more transparent and communicative. Political decisions by a referendum are the results of a nation wide opinion forming process. Communication and open debate are indispensable. Political elites, parties and interest groups have to be in a close dialogue with voters. Reflection, discussion, meetings and interactions are a must. In this context the media are bound to play an important role.
It is not surprising that the referendum belongs to the most popular institutions in Switzerland. 90% of the people do not want to miss it. This is in contrast with the fact that the participation rate in a referendum is not very high. Most of the times less then 50% of the people are casting heir ballot. Nevertheless the direct democratic decision is valid. There is no necessity of a quorum.
I do not want to hide, that the institutions of direct democracy in Switzerland are also subject of sometimes vigorous and also controversial debates. While one side criticises the referendum an impediment to change, the other side considers it as a factor for political efficiency. This, because the threat of a veto by a referendum obliges the political authorities to find carefully drafted and pragmatic solutions. This indeed prevents costs mistakes and of repairs.
Indeed the possibility of referenda plays an important role in the political law-shaping process. When the Parliament deals with details of a legislative project, the question of its chances in a referendum is always in the air. Even the possibility of a referendum works like a watchdog! Thus, the substance of each bill of law or international treaty has to be elaborated in a way not to provoke a referendum, or at least to have a chance to be adopted by the voters.
The referendum grants the society a particular and strong integrating force. It involves people mentally and emotionally in political decisions and therefore is a very important component of political culture. Individuals become part of a process what makes them better informed. Furthermore. the political elite cannot sit on a high horse. It is constantly called to dialogue and convince the voters. This fact alone brings them down to earth and closer to the people’s thinking.
In Switzerland where 4 linguistic cultures live side by side this is a decisive element of national cohesion.
You might what role political parties, trade associations, NGOs, interest groups, lobbies, etc. play in this context.
Of course their contribution is important from the very first step to launch a referendum. It starts already in the phase of collecting a sufficient number of signatures. Even if
50 000 or 100 000 signatures seem to be easily to get, the reality is different. Without the support of public organisations the number is hard to achieve.
Once the campaign starts, parties have to decide on their position, to mobilize their members and supporters and to fight actively. Referenda are an important means for a party to get public profile.
Most of the time a referendum is launched by those political interest groups who have not been successful with their demands during the parliamentary process. Thus the referendum is very often used by the opposition. This means that the winning majority in Parliament has to argue and to fight for its decisions in public. This goes far beyond just repeating what has been said in the House. In the referendum campaign one has to inform and to find a different way to argue and to convince the voters. This has also to do with the fact that Swiss are not excessively bound to political parties. And even when they are bound, they do not automatically follow what the parties are preaching. So the members of the Government and the MPs get strongly involved in the campaign.
It is a speciality of my country that the political parties have a decentralised organisation. So it is possible, that regional branches of the same national party defend different positions. In addition our system is so liberal that it may also occur that the party takes a different position than its representative in the Government. This situation arises with the next referendum in my party. Our minister of interior is fighting for a higher VAT to secure the retirement pensions. His party dos not like the idea and is fighting against it.
Of course such circumstance can be confusing. But more essential is that there be an effective distribution of power between the Government and the citizens. And it is also true that the clash of strong convictions mobilizes more people to cast their vote then a smooth lukewarm campaign.
Ladies and Gentlemen
There is a lot more to say about the specific Swiss system of direct democracy. But I hope I was able to give you an idea about our institutions. More and more people around the world seem to be interested in it.
